Skip to main content

tv   Public Affairs  CSPAN  June 13, 2013 5:00pm-8:01pm EDT

5:00 pm
mr. young: i thank the gentleman and i ask the gentleman if he agrees with me that section 811 was not intended to be a cap or a baron sole source awards above $20 million, and also ask if he's concerned about the growing number of reports that agencies are treating the threshold, requiring sole source justification as a proficient on such awards? mr. mckeon: will the gentleman yield? mr. young: i yield to the gentleman. mr. mckeon: i agree that it's intended to provide those awards but was not intended to be a prohibition on such crlts. mr. young: mr. chairman, i ask to you join me with my colleague from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, to continue oversight on federal agency implementations of section 811 and going the controller general provide us with a full report with respect to any inconsistencies in the ways agencies are implementing section 811 and negative impacts on such sections as having native american contractors and provide recommendations how the
5:01 pm
provisions should be better implemented. such a report will aid congress in ensuring that section 811 is implemented so it makes clear that the provision does not impose a cap or limit on awards covered by the provision. so long as the justifications and approvals are pursuant to the provision. the provision intended to provide a level of approval, rewards.s a limit on mr. mckeon: i would be happy to work with the gentleman and our colleague from hawaii to send a joint letter to the comptroller general in the matter he suggests and to consider oversight on this issue. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. hahn. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise to speak on amendment 246 which is a bipartisan amendment that i co-sponsored with my good friend, colleague, congressman don young. you know, despite the vital role that they play to our
5:02 pm
economic strength and national security, our ports, unlike nearly every other mode of transportation, still do not have a dedicated source of federal funding for infrastructure projects. ensuring that our ports have the infrastructure funding they need is not only critical to strengthening our economy but also to making sure that our ports can handle the sudden needs of rapid deployment in the outbreak of war or during a national emergency. this amendment would allow the maritime administration to provide infrastructure grants to our nation's ports and prioritize funding for strategic seaports. by finaling giving them the tools they need to successfully mitigate congestion and increase the flow of goods at u.s. ports, we will ensure our ports will be fully prepared to serve our national defense and continue to be the strong economic engine that drives our nation's prosperity.
5:03 pm
i want to thank congressman young for working with me on this amendment as well as my colleague from california, chairman mckeeon, and ranking member smith for -- chairman mckeon and ranking member smith for accepting this amendment en bloc. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i yield to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i thank the chairman. my amendment is very simple. it asks the department of defense to report on what tually makes an installation strategically important. i'm always told that the strategic importance of various installations in alaska and all across this country. however, strategic is never fully defined. my amendment merely asks the department of defense to qualify and fauntify exactly what makes -- quantify exactly what makes it strategic. among these are bases in
5:04 pm
fairbanks as the home of the 18th squadron. this provides our nation's with real-life training they need to be the best in the world. they have mock battles and the longest training range in the united states and one of the best training areas of the world. and home of the strategic 168 air guard refueling wing. these kc-135's provides our northern air bridge which allows to provide power in the arctic and northern pacific. i have confidence that my amendment and the following d.o.d. report will show that -- alaska is the most strategic place in the world. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for two minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak in support of en bloc amendment of 244, the
5:05 pm
young-hanabusa amendment. the fiscal year 2010 ndaa requiring that any native american contract in excess of $20 million go to a heightened justification and approval. the justification and approval is often interpreted to be approved by the head of an agency, and this requirement is shown by a recent g.a.o. report to cause a 60% decline in revenue from these contracts. it's resulted in a loss of job, reduced benefits to native americans and led to a large amount of discrimination against native american community owned firms. what it does is it makes it authority. native hawaiian organizations, these entities are conducting critical research for our defense and other sectors of government while also supporting critical programs within the community. it makes no sense to place onerous requirements on these successful organizations that
5:06 pm
significantly decrease the ability to conduct business. further, i support the letter to the g.a.o. requesting a full and detailed report with respect to any inconsistencies in the way the agencys are implementing section 811, the negative impacts such section is having on native american contractors along with recommendations of how the provisions should be implemented. mr. speaker, i also like to thank the chairman, the ranking member and my colleague, mr. young from alaska, for this amendment and for placing it in the en bloc package and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: thank you and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise amendment number 143 which highlights the threat posed by hezbollah. hezbollah is one of the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations. after al qaeda, it is
5:07 pm
responsible for the most deaths of american citizens. hezbollah is behind a series of terrorist attacks around the rld, including the plot to assassinate an ambassador here in washington. it is backed by the iranian regime and has joined the fight to protect another iranian proxy, the assad regime in syria. hezbollah was behind an attack in bulgaria that killed five people. unfortunately, the european union has not yet listed hezbollah as a terrorist organization. my amendment calls on the e.u. to recognize that hezbollah is a terrorist organization. please vote yes on this amendment to stand against terrorism. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, we have no further speakers. urge adoption of the en bloc
5:08 pm
amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. en bloc amendments are agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-108 on which further proceedings were postponed, amendment number 2, amendment number 3, amendment number 5 by mr. coffman of colorado, amendment number 9 by mr. rigell of virginia, amendment number 10 by mcgovern of massachusetts, amendment number 11 by goodlatte of virginia, amendment number 12 by mr. smith of washington. the chair will reduce to two minutes after the first electronic vote in this first series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-108
5:09 pm
by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 107. the nays are 310.
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 106. the nays are 318. the majority voting -- not voting in the affirmative, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevade by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mrs. lummis of wyoming. the chair: a recorded vote has
5:37 pm
been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
the chair: on this vote the eas are 232 --
5:41 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 235, the nays are 189. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment nment 5 printed in part b of house report 113-108 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. coffman of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has
5:42 pm
been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. vote.ill be a two-minute [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
the chair: the yeas are 206 and nays are 220 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on the the gentleman from virginia on which the noes prevailed by
5:49 pm
voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-108. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. snord. having ficient number arisen, this will be a recorded vote. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
the chair: less than majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is not agreed to. endment number 10 printed in house report presented by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern and the ayes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-108 offered by mr. mcgovern of
5:53 pm
massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
the chair: the yeas are 304, the nays are 121.
5:56 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 305 and the nays are 121. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in house report 113-108 on the amendment by the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 113-108 offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
5:57 pm
members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
the chair: the yeas are 214 and the nays are 211. the amendment is agreed to.
6:00 pm
the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 113-108 by the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 200, the nays are 226. the amendment is not agreed to.
6:06 pm
the chair: the question is on the committee rising. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the committee rises.
6:07 pm
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1960, directs me to report that it has come to nos remain title of the resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has under consideration h.r. 1960 and has ome to no resolution there on. he house will come to order.
6:08 pm
6:09 pm
the speaker pro tempore: h.r. 1960. mr. mckeon: pursuant to house resolution 260, amendments 14 and 23 printed in part b of house report 113-0108 may be considered out of sequence. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1960. will the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 1960, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
6:10 pm
2014, for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, the second set of en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. denham: i rise to offer arguments in support. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. denham of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california, mr. denham, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: mr. speaker, thank you for giving me the
6:11 pm
opportunity to speak on behalf my amendment, to allingt rise the enlistment in the armed forces of undocumented immigrants who entered the u.s. under 15 years of age, who entered country on or before december 31, 2011, and who are otherwise qualified for enlistment. this amendment will also provide a way for this group of undocumented immigrants to be lawfully admitted to the united states for permanent residence by reason of their honorable service and sacrifice in the united states military. as a nation, we have never made citizenship a requirement for service in our armed forces. half of the u.s. military enlistees in the 1840's were immigrants. and more than 660,000 military veterans through naturalization between 1862 and 2000. mr. speaker, i have worn the uniform. i have served with many immigrants. in desert storm, in somalia, my uncle and godfather served with
6:12 pm
immigrants during the vietnam, grandfather, grandmother served in korea where europeans were encouraged to sign up for the united states military. filipinos from 1947 to 2000 were encouraged to sign up and serve in the military. this is one opportunity for those that have gone to school here, that have graduated from high school, that are in our communities, show their ultimate support for this great nation and are willing to sacrifice in support of our country. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ho seeks time? for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? and seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise
6:13 pm
in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rigell: i yield the time to mr. becerra of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. becerra: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like tone gauge the gentleman from california in a olloquy, if i may -- to engage the gentleman from california in a colloquy if i may. the chair: the gentleman from washington does control the time. mr. becerra: and i would ask that the gentleman allow us to ngage in a colloquy. mr. larsen: no objection. mr. becerra: what i would like to ask is that in conversations that have taken place between members on this particular amendment, there is obviously quite a bit of support on this side of the house for legislation that would honor the service of any american, including those americans who had come to this country through no fault of their own, without documentation, have essentially become americans through their time as youngsters in this country, and
6:14 pm
then wanted to fulfill service to this nation by applying to serve in our armed forces. this amendment, however, has some flaws in it that may get -- make it very difficult for the very people that the gentleman is trying to help to actually receive the opportunity to serve our country and then be able to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence and ultimately we hope to become u.s. citizens. there's also a further flaw in the bill that would prevent any part of this from ever taking effect unless the gentleman were able to find the resources to implement this. and as he and i discussed, before this amendment was put on the floor, that would be very difficult unless we were prepared to make some substantial changes to the current funding of some very important mandatory programs, including retired pay, retirement pay for our soldiers, tricare, which is health care services for our military service members,
6:15 pm
mortgage refinancing for our service members. so, i would ask the gentleman, if the gentleman was intent on pursuing this amendment today, or if he was prepared to withdraw and have further conversation to see if these flaws could be corrected? i would also note that for many of us who have been working for over 20 years to dry -- try to reform a broken immigration system, this is certainly one aspect of a broken immigration system that must be fixed. but on any number of -- there are any number of hardworking individuals in this country who we believe, through a comprehensive fix of our broken immigration system, would have an opportunity to show all american citizens that they have tried to work very hard to earn a chance to become tax paying american citizens and so while we prefer, many of us prefer to be able to deal with all aspects of a broken immigration system, this is certainly one that truly needs to be dealt with and deserves attention, but this amendment
6:16 pm
has two very substantial flaws and i would ask the gentleman what his intentions are with regard to pursuing this amendment on the floor this evening? with that i would, if -- with the permission of our ranking member, i would ask that he be yielded time, mr. denham be ielded time to rerespond. >> without objection. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. denham is recognized. mr. denham: in addressing his concern about the cost of this bill, it is yet to be defined. this is something we need the administration to define the cost as it would of any bill that would go through the process, we look forward to working with the gentleman from california on this amendment but certainly working with the administration to define an unknown cost that we are realizing today. mr. larsen: how much time do i have left, mr. chairman?
6:17 pm
the chair: two and a half minutes. mr. larsen: i yield one minute. the chair: one minute to the gentleman from virginia. mr. becerra: i would prefer to have the gentleman from california, mr. denham, yield to me. mr. larsen: i reserve. mr. denham: i thank the wrelt for yielding and i want to tell him how much i appreciate him raising this important issue. there's no doubt that individuals brought to the united states as young children by their illegal immigrant parents are the most sympathetic group of people not lawfully present in the united states -- mr. goodlatte: and that's particularly true of those who desire to serve in the armed forces. we should embrace these whs goal it is to live and work by the rules of our nation. this is an issue we plan to
6:18 pm
look at in the judiciary committee and i want to thank the wrelt from california, mr. becerra, for raising the issue in the context of our overall efforts to deal with immigration reform and the gentleman from california will braw his -- will withdraw his amendment i would commit to him to work with him in addressing the situation and immigration status of these individuals. this should and can be done in the broad spectrum of the entire immigration debate which, as you know, we are fully engaged in this -- engaged in, in the house judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. denham. mr. denham: i look forward to working with the gentleman but i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: i continue to reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. denham: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute.
6:19 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. actually -- i rise actually to thank you for pleasure denham, for bringing up this important issue. mr. diaz-balart: i want to thank the gentleman for bringing up this issue, and the contributions he's taking about, people have made throughout our history. you are bringing up an issue i am glad finally somebody has brought up. i know you're going to continue, as you have, to show the leadership on this issue you have from day one. i for one want to tell you that i'm willing and to the do whatever i can to be of help because i think the issue that you have brought up today is essential not only for a group of individuals but more importantly for the national security interests of the united states. so again, thank you, sir, for bringing this up. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. denham: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from
6:20 pm
washington. mr. larsen: mr. chairman, do i understand that we have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. larsen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. becerra: i appreciate the gentleman from california being willing to withdraw the amendment and certainly appreciate the work of the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte in proposing that we try to resolve this in this chame. i think we want to make it very leer, i think every one of my colleagues who have spoke on this amendment has said, this is an important issue because we have a lot of young americans who are trapped in the situation where they have to live in the shah tose, especially for those who wish to provide service for our couldn'tfully uniform, all of us believe if you're willing to give that highest calling of service that we want to be there to be not only appreciative of your service but recognizing the valor involved.
6:21 pm
and so let's -- i want to make sure we're very clear. we support the motion of trying to help these young american whors americans in everything but legal title, the opportunity to serve this country. this amendment unfortunately would not accomplish that if it were to go forward. that's why i think it's so important as mr. goodlatte, chairman of the judicial committee pointed out that we withdraw the amendment and try to make corrections so we can get to the point of dealing with immigration reform. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alifornia. mr. denham: how much time doif remaining? the chair: you have one and a half minutes. mr. denham: i yield it to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. my father was a veteran of world war ii and korea. he taught me growing up that there's no greater demonstration of american citizenship than serving one's
6:22 pm
country in the military. mr. to haveman -- mr. coffman: in my congressional district there are a lot of yuck people who came to this cupry by their arents illegally who grew up in the united states, who went to school here, and who want to serve this country in the military. it is the only country that they've known. and so they ought to be afforded the right to do that and to demonstrate what is the greatest, i think, form of citizenship what is various in the united states military. and so i think that this is something that we've got to accomplish as a part of comprehensive immigration reform, something certainly that will make our country better a better place. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington has a minute and a quarter remaining. mr. larson: we continue to reserve. the chair: the yell from california has 30 seconds.
6:23 pm
mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. let me finish by saying the precedence is here, legal permanent residents are already serving in our military, from american samoa, from micronesia, we have a long history of over 660,000 immigrants serving in our military from other countries. this seems like something that should be a bipartisan, commonsense way to address this problem, allowing people to not only have the -- not only being able to serve in the military, that great opportunity that they have, but ultimately, the ultimate sacrifice, giving your life far great country like this. and with that, mr. chairman, i can unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection, he amendment is withdrawn.
6:24 pm
the chair: it's now in order to consider the amendment number 21 prinned in house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the clesk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed nuss he report 113-108 offered by mr. turner of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. turner: last year i stood on the house floor and asked the president to make available to us, the congress and the american public, the details of what i believe ma have seen is a secret deal the president has
6:25 pm
with the russians concerning the united states missile defense. everyone is very much aware that the president had an open mic incident where he didn't expect the american public to hear what he was saying when he was meeting in seoul, south korea, when he was meeting with then-president medvedev of russia. he said, this is my last election, obama told medvedev, he said, quote, after my election i will have more flexibility. you don't have to take my word for it, you can see this on youtube where the president offers the issue of missile defense as one that's negotiable with the russians after he's no longer answering to the american public through the election. what's troubling is as we stood on the house floor and demanded the president make public the terms of this secret deal he was talking about with medvedev, the president didn't make any of those details available but instead after the election with the stroke of his pen abandoned phase four of his
6:26 pm
own phased adaptive approach ms. isle defense plan that would have provided missile defense protection for the united states homeland. it was a portion of the missile defense shield that was objected to by the russians. so here we have the president sitting with medvedev sarke wait until after the election i'll have more flexibility and then subs kent to the election abandoning a portion of the missile defense shield that was intened to protect the homeland. what's more troubling is in russian press reports is that president pew sin says they have received from the united states indications of a further deal and further negotiations, further offers from this administration to what i believe weakened and diminished our missile defense shield. the president needs to make these public, we are asking for a sense of congress demanding that the president make public the details of what he is offering president putin. the president said he's going to be the most open, most transparent administration and yet this is an area where not
6:27 pm
only the administration denied negotiations are ongoing but denies to let us know the materials of the negotiations. our sense of congress says, mr. president, make these public. as we know, south korea is incredibly vulnerable to north korea. the united states is vulnerable to north korea as north korea has taken missiles and put them on launch pads. we have concerns and threats to the united states. this president shouldn't be negotiating away our missile defense shield especially not in a manner that's open and transparent to members of congress. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lar zen: i encourage my -- mr. larsen: i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. this implies the president is in a secret deal with russia for nuclear weapons reducks.
6:28 pm
we know the president has the constitutional power to conduct formulations and congress has the authority to provide advice and consent to ratification and deny funding for implementation of any treaty. the administration has provided regular briefings and supplied senior state defense officials over here to our committee, the house foreign affairs committee and talks on russia. this amendment is also not necessary, the bill already contains numerous provisions asking for information on u.s.-russian missile defense cooperation and blocking nuclear weapons reductions. so i'd ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. with that, i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. turner: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. turner: i yield one minute to mr. bridenstine. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
6:29 pm
mr. bridenstine: the president as everybody remembers told then-russian president medvedev we would have more flexibility to cut a secret deal, he didn't use the word sket but we all understand that's what it was, on missile defense after the 2012 election. we also know the national security advisor conveyed a letter from the president to russian president putin that reportedly proposed a missile defense agreement that would avoid congressional review and consent. given this administration's lack of transparency, i have no confidence in the president's abilities to negotiate on missile defense or on nuclear weapons. mr. chairman, missile defenses protect our nation. they protect our deployed forces and ally -- and our allies from attack. our nuclear deterrence is a stabilizing force that prosed -- promotes restraint and i sure ours allies security. given our economic and military superiority, currently we have military dominance when
6:30 pm
compared to russia. i personally don't trust this president to negotiate it away. i think it's important that we as members of congress, should have oversight here. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. lar zen spb i yield -- mr. larsen: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i think virtually everyone on our side of the aisle in this chamber would agree if the president wants to submit a treaty he has to follow the constitution to get it approve. i think all of us should agree if the president wants to implement a so-called executive agreement not subject to treaty confirmation, we should vigorously exercise our power of the purse and our oversight authority to make sure that that's in the best interest of the american people and if it's not, we shouldn't fund it. as the constitution gives us the prerogative. the problem with this resolution is -- this
6:31 pm
amendment, if it said, we call on the president to give us complete information about what's going on between us and russia, i would vote for it. but i can't vote for an amendment that has findings that are hearsay at best and inaccurate at worst. the word finding in the operation of this institution implies there's been a sober, thorough, factual inquiry as to what's going on. these findings are pure hearsay. they say certain members have read newspaper articles. that's interesting but that's not a finding. it then characterizes, characterizes the president as trading away for the prospect of nuclear arms reductions certain weapons system or defense systems. i would really ask anyone on the other side if they could cite to us any instance where the president has in fact made an agreement where he has traded away any defense system to the russians or anyone else? i don't think they can. the right vote on this is no.
6:32 pm
we should exercise oversight we should not engage in science fiction. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from ohio has one minute remaining. mr. turner: i yield a minute to the gentleman. >> i thank the speaker. i rise in support of the turner amendment. this administration must be transparent with the congress on negotiating proposals with foreign states, especially on something as important as u.s. security -- to u.s. security as missile defense. numerous members of the house, including chairman mckeon, have written asking questions of the d.o.d. and the president as to the content of proposals that the administration is and may be making with the russians. mr. rogers: we see over and over again russian officials after visits by the u.s. referencing proposals that have been made on missile defenses. we know from these press reports that the president is proposing executive agreements and drafting executive orders to provide, quote, legally
6:33 pm
binding, closed quote, constraints on our missile defenses. when we as members of congress ask about these proposals we're told next to nothing. it's unacceptable for this administration to step on the congress when negotiating over u.s. missile defenses. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. again, i ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. we've heard from this side not just the content of this amendment being sort of out of whack with reality, but also when we consider whether or not it's necessary, this is not a necessary amendment. giving the provisions -- given the provisions that are already in h.r. 1960. so i'd ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. both sides having yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
6:34 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: mr. chairman, with that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. larsen: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 260, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 3, con sifingt of amendments numbers 29, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 63, 65, 66, 0, 61, 0printed 80 and 16 in house report -- 160, printed
6:35 pm
in house report 113-108 offered by mr. mckeon of california. mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 29 be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 29 offered by mr. mckeon of california. page 3, -- page 317, strike lines 15 -- mr. mckeon: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the modification be dispensed with. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is modified. pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc. all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority. at this time i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, is recognized for one minute.
6:36 pm
mr. culberson: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is very straightforward. the medal of honor is our nation's highest award, given only to those shoulders who have -- soldiers who have performed acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty. today the medal has been made of brass. today my amendment would make sure that it be made of gold. it's the least we can do for our bravest soldiers who have earned america's highest award nd i would move passage. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. cardenas: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentlemen for their leadership and bringing this bill to the floor. i also want to thank them for allowing me to speak on my amendments, even though they'll be considered later on today. the three amendments that i have offered will strengthen our nation's cybersecurity so
6:37 pm
we can effectively defend our nation, economy and innovation. we all know that cyber-based terrorism, espionage and computer intrusions are not going away any time soon. these attacks occur far more frequently and rapidly and are more sophisticated than most people would care to know. anonymity makes it difficult to trace the origin of these attacks and prosecute criminals. these attacks are not only intended to steal defense secrets or technology, but also targeted at some of our most critical industries. according to a study, those industries include construction and manufacturing, media, advertisement, and entertainment, financial services, health care, food and agriculture, and education. this is not only a national security but also an economic issue as well. my first amendment strengthens our preparedness and ability to fend off attacks by expanding our understanding of the economic impact of cyberintrusions on u.s. defense industry. it also requires the department of defense to identify ways to protect our intellectual property when attacks occur.
6:38 pm
my second amendment directs the secretary of defense to establish an outreach in education program to educate small businesses on cyberthreats and assist them in developing plans to protect intellectual property in their networks. my third amendment ensures that the comprehensive mission analysis of cyberoperations mandated in this bill also includes an assessment of the retention, recruitment and management of the cyberwork force -- cyber work force. the department of defense must provide incentives and opportunities and professional development paths that will encourage civilians and service members to enter and hone in the skills they need to be part of this cyberfield. these amendments will strengthen our national security and i urge their passage and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana for the purpose of a quolqui -- colloquy. >> mr. speaker, i rise to commend the armed services
6:39 pm
committee on their excellent work here and i want to take this opportunity to highlight an issue addressing last year's ndaa, which required the secretary of defense to produce a report this fall that examines an issue of great importance. during my prior service on the armed services committee, i learned of a discrepancy in the law where military facilities closed outside of the brag process are not given the same indemnification against liabilities that are a result of hazardous substances left over from any previous d.o.d. activities. mr. young: several army ammunition plants were closed out of the brag process and because d.o.d. is not required to maintain responsibility for potential problems related to military use, we're hindering redevelopment of these properties. last year i wrote a bill called the base redevelopment and indemnification correction act or the bric act. it was included in the
6:40 pm
house-passed ndaa but was removed during conference. however, language was adopted that requires a d.o.d. assessment of the status of these former defense facilities, as well as recommendations to facilitate their redevelopment. local redeveloped businesses should not be held responsible for any lingering issues that were a result of d.o.d. operations. i anticipate the secretary's report on this matter will provide a path forward for these former military installations that remain disadvantaged without these important indemnification protections. i thank the chairman for his continued support to address this ongoing issue and look forward to working with the committee after the report's released to address this glaring anomaly. i yield to the gentleman. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman. reuse of former military installations is essential for the local communities. and the many -- and in many circumstances represents a real opportunity to amortize the initial cost of a new development. i also look forward to
6:41 pm
receiving a coppy of the secretary's report and i hope it will inform congress so we may address this important issue in a deliberate and thoughtful manner. i especially look forward to hearing the secretary's recommendations in dealing with this important matter. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chair. i yield one minute to mr. takano of california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to express my strong support for the amendments submitted by the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, known previously as h.r. 1842, the military family home protection act. as a member of the veterans affairs committee and the ranking member of the economic opportunities subcommittee, taking care of our service members and their families is one of my top priorities. this legislation does just that. it takes care of our heroes. by staying foreclosures when
6:42 pm
service members are receiving hostile fire or when they are medically discharged, by doubling the civil penalties for mortgage-related violations and by prohibiting banks from discriminating against service members, veterans or surviving spouses, the military family home protection act no long air louis our heroes and their -- no longer allows our heroes or their families to be taken advantage of. since the economic down turn, more than 700 service members have been wrongfully foreclosured on and more than -- foreclosed on and many have been subjected by illegal practices. the men and women who fight bravely for our nation deserve better. we owe it to them -- 15 seconds? the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. takano: we owe it to them not to allow their families to be thrown out of their houses when they are putting their lives on the line in the name of freedom. i urge my colleagues to support our military families. thank you and i yield back.
6:43 pm
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i have a colloquy on an amendment i intend to withdraw. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, is recognized, excuse me. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield to the chairman of the foreign affairs committee for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. royce, is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, we are facing a serious and growing national security threat in central africa. rebel groups long active in the region have taken on a new form of elicit activity to fill their coffers, and that form is poaching. on the black market, ivory from elephant tusks run over $1,000 per kilo. rhino horns are worth their weight in gold. more than their weight in gold.
6:44 pm
$30,000 per pound. the black market for wildlife is now in the league of drug smuggling. the low risk and high reward of poaching makes it ideal for criminal groups but also for extremist groups. indeed, groups like the lord's resistance army, which the u.s. military is helping africans to track down. and the al qaeda-linked al shabab are reaping the benefit it's by brutally slaughtering these majestic, defenseless animals. these aren't your poor man's poachers, either. many poachers today are outfitted with the night-vision gol goggles and sophisticated g.p.s. equipment, they fly helicopters, they slaughter these endangered species from above. a recent u.n. report cites an increase of advanced weapons used in poaching which can be traced back to the fall of gaddafi. in libya. earlier this year, testifying on worldwide threats, the head
6:45 pm
of our intelligence community noted that the multibillion-dollar industry of elicit wildlife trade threatens to disrupt the rule of law in important countries around the world. and that involves disparate actors from government and military personnel to members of insurgent groups and transnational organized crime as well. unfortunately, african nations lack the capability, lack that capacity to address the problem. with relatively few security resources dedicated to combating them, poachers operate freely. this amendment would have provided authority for the defense department to advise and assist africans to suppress this elicit wildlife -- illicit wildlife trade. they're focusing on counterterrorism and counternarcotics. since these illicit activities
6:46 pm
are interwovegen, this is an ideal area to further our corporation with african partners, helping their stability, our security and the chances that the magnificent species aren't extinguished. mr. mckeon: i yield the gentleman -- mr. royce: i thank the gentleman for the additional time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington s recognized. mr. larsen: i yield one minute to mr. lowey of new york. mrs. lowey: the sexual assault epidemic in our military is plaguing our academies, which showed a 23% increase in sexual assaults last year. these were just the cases that were reported. my amendment would require academies to insert sexual assault prevention into their ethics curriculum.
6:47 pm
using ethics as an avenue to teach sexual assault prevention can strengthen the messages of character development. it would put the discussion at the center of the service's culture which must be chayed to stop sexual assault in the military. i thank the chair and ranking member for including my amendment in the en bloc and i ield back. mr. larsen: i reserve the alance of my time. mr. chairman, how much time is remaining? he chair: the gentleman from california has five mins remaining.
6:48 pm
-- five minutes remaining. mr. mckeown: i yield to the gentleman from california to finish from when we were so udely interrupted. mr. royce: i know you share my thoughts on the threat of poaching and i know we can work together to address this problem. the chair: thank you, mr. chairman. -- mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. chairman. i hope you appreciatey weak attempt at humor -- humor. i'd like to start by acknowledging the long-standing work mr. royce has done on this issue. he has spelled out this elinks between poaching and terrorist groups in after chasm i share these concerns. he's also correct that after come is continuing to engage
6:49 pm
with our african partners in a variety of pays. under chairman royce's leadership i understand the foreign affairs committee will be continuing to look into illegal wildlife trafficing in africa and the national security consequences. i fully support that effort. i believe we should seek a greater understanding of the linkages between these ill list activities and find an interagency approach to counter this threat. the u.s. military has a troll play in countering terrorist groups and their networks that bought target our national interest in this region. i look forward to our committees continuing to work together. mr. royce: i appreciate the gentleman's comments. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the secret from washington. mr. larsen: i'd like to yield one minute to mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: i thank -- mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. i want to describe two amendments i have that the chairman and leadership were
6:50 pm
kind enough to include en bloc. i am a member of the united states commission on research and development in the intelligence community. and i won't go through the whole report, in fact it's being declassified in part part now, but we talk about the great looping threat to our technological advantage in the intelligence arena, the shortest -- shortage of scientist and mathematicians. i have an amendment directing the secretary of defense to report to congress within 60 days from this bill on whether the science, mathematics and research transformation is providing adequate help to undergraduate and fwradge watt students to meet our scientific and technical needs. i have another amendment that grew out of a suicide tragedy in my district. this amendment would allow any to e adjew tant general request any individual for any
6:51 pm
mobile reserve or augmentee living in the state to provide suicide prevention and outreach services for such reservists. i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeown: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. we have no more speakers on the en bloc and yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i continue troverb. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from washington's time has been yielded back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield myself the balance of my time. how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from
6:52 pm
california has three and three quarter minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you very much. i yield myself the balance of that time. just an hour ago the president con firled chemical weapons including sarin gas have been used by the assaad regime against syrian civilian sms the president stated that a red line has been crossed. but i would observe that red lines are meaningless unless they are backed by action. the underlying bill reflects the sense of congress that any red line should be backed with substantive measures. the white house stated this evening that president obama agrees with this sentiment. tonight representatives of the national security council stated and i quote, the president has made the decision to support syrian opposition. that includes military support, end quote. i expect to see more details in the coming days from the white house and the department of defense.
6:53 pm
i am, however, deeply concerned about our ability to honor and uphold red lines. our military readiness and our ability to respond is degraded today 17 combat-coded air force quad rons are grounded due to budget cuts. a carrier battle group should be in the mideast but instead is in port. we just pulled the last a-10 ground attack squadron out of germany because some felt a forward operating presence was unnecessary for a so-called cold war mission. and yet we have an amendment here this evening that would cut $5 billion that, in addition to funding the troops in afghanistan, provides support to help alleviate deep readiness problems that are porting our ships and grounding our fighter jets. another amendment this evening would strike the very sense of congress that all courses of action not just military should
6:54 pm
be considered in syria and that our red lines must have meanings. reality has overwhelmed both of these proposals. to my friends who think there's no risk to ever-deeper cuts, i ask you to tell that to the airmen and sailor who may -- airman and sailor who may well face down syrian missiles in the coming weeks. to my friends who are contemplating further cuts when you vote tomorrow, consider you may be denying the war fighter this the hour of train thoring piece of hardware that means the difference between life and death. none of us is comfortable in putting them into harm's way at this time or in that place but that does not mean that they may not have to go. and that does not mean we shouldn't give them all they need. here in congress and the white house -- here congress and the white house agree in principle. boundaries are useless unless they are enforced and resourced.
6:55 pm
i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc as modified offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the preponderance of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in art b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does think gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair.
6:56 pm
i thank the rules committee and the leadership of the armed services committee for making this amendment in order. the amendment's purpose is simple. to eliminate the missile defense related portions of the bill with the exception of the relatively successful iron dome program. now some of you may know, i've been involved with arms control issues for decades, since i was part of the u.s. delegation to geneva sent to investigate the then-soviet phased radar in the early 1980's. my training as a physicist as well as decades i've spent dealing with these issues long ago led me to conclude a couple of things. effective strategic ballistic missile defense systems have not been and are not likely to be technologically feasible. and, second, attempting to
6:57 pm
build them only fuels the international arms race. if you don't believe this latter point, let me quolet from a russian television story on june 8 of this year. quote, russia's strategic missile fofferses have reported a successful launch of a next generation icbm that can supposedly pierce any antiballistic missile system. the test came after the u.s. announced it would resume its a.b.m. program in europe that is a description of the arms race that should have ended years ago. the article oh gows ton to quote russian deputy minister who says that the new russian icbm was, quote a missile defense killer, neither current nor future american missile defense systems will be able to prevent that missile from hitting the target dead on, end quoteful yes, arms race.
6:58 pm
just as it has for over 30 years, our continued pursuit of a strategic ballistic missile defense system is perpetuating the arms race, in this case between the united states and russia. and would perpetuate arms races between the united states and china or others. it's also an expense we cannot afford. the missile defense agency itself estimates that since fiscal year 1985, congress has appropriated $149.5 billion for strategic ballistic missile defense systems and the system has still never been tested successfully against any of the kind of real world threats offered by missiles equipped with decoys, jammers and so on. this bill proposes to continue throwing good money after bad, with one exception. the tactical iron dome missile defense system. our israeli ally with funding approved by this congress, and
6:59 pm
that i have supported and many here have supported, have developed what is the best and certainly me it's the -- the most well tested tactical defense system in the world. it's not perfect and missile defense expert here's and in israel continue to debate the exact kill rate. which israeli officials claim is 84%. what is clear is that this system is more practical and more immediately useful for the defense of israel than our strategic defense system is for us. what my amendment would do is stop the united states from throw manager money at a failed, politically destabilizing strategic missile defense system and instead would allow continuing funding for further development of efforts for iron dome and tactical systems like that. the kind of systems that may help save lives in israel and
7:00 pm
save lives of deployed american troops should they face opponents like north korea or iran. accordingly, i urge my colleagues to support this and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i rise to claim time np on -- in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, mr. rogers. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise in vigorous om situation. at a time when missile defense has never been stronger, the gentleman's amendment would strike bipartisan provisions that will improve our mifled system. the amendment would strike a provision the committee adopt that had would improve the kill assessment capability of the ground-based mid-course defense
7:01 pm
system. why would the gentleman want a national missile defense system with a robust sill assessment capability that is technically possible? it would deal with an analysis of alternatives on the future space architecture. does the gentleman want a study on the persistent space overhead sensor system. the gentleman is relying on so-called experts who in the community labored to create doubts about our missile defense deterrent systems. i ask how many of these experts have been briefed on what the system does on the incredibly technically demanding tests that the war fighters create? i would say none. i urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, come get some classified briefings and see if we can't add him to the overwhelming bipartisan group of
7:02 pm
policy makers that support a strong and robust national and regional missile defense. with that, i ask the members to vote no. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: may i ask the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has 45 seconds remaining. mr. holt: i thank the chair and i would say that the desire for a strategic missile defense system may be as strong as it ever has been, but the demonstration, the accomplishments of the work towards such a system are no farther along than they have been for decades. you cannot -- we can repeal legislation, we could repeal perhaps obamacare if the other side had their way, but we annot repeal the laws of psysics and long experience tells me this is a wasteful
7:03 pm
program. e iron dome task ta call system are worth proposing and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized and has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn -- i yield him the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman of the full committee and i appreciate what mr. rogers of alabama, has said. i totally agree with what he has put forward and against this amendment, i would have to add that one of the other things it does harmful to our national defense is it would stop the progress we're making on creating a third site in the eastern coast of the united states for missile defense.
7:04 pm
he quoted some russian television commentator. that has no relevance to what ground-based missile defense is all about. ground-based missile defense is against a rogue missile fired from a north korea or iran or some country like that, an accidental single launch from another country. it is not to fight against the russians or the chinese. that's not it at all. so we have some interceptors already in place in alaska and in california. the eastern site would add that same capability of defense against a rogue missile on the east coast. i happen to believe that we should be protecting the east keith better than we are today. the people of new jersey deserve just as much protection as the people of california. and we have that capability. you said it hasn't defeated
7:05 pm
jammers or decoys. the north koreans don't have those. e iranians aren't that far along. so we don't have to have the perfect -- in this case, the perfect would be the enemy of the good. we have had missiles in tests that are like a bullet shooting down a bullet. we have had many successful tests. and we could stop a north korean or iranian missile. and we have that on the west coast. we should have that on the east keith. this congress in the -- coast. there is a study of the east coast site and should go forward. unfortunately this amendment, if it passes, would stop that. for the reasons already stated by representative rogers, i would urge a strong no. this would be destructive of
7:06 pm
missile defense and our national defense. please vote no. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new jersey -- mr. holt: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the
7:07 pm
desk. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in part b of house report 113-108 offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260. the the gentlewoman from from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. mccollum: the national guard is spending $35 million to sponsor world wrestling entertainment, that's right in a time of enormous federal deficits, borrowing from china, sequestration harming military readiness and deep cuts to the services for vulnerable children, seniors and people with disability, the army 53 onal guard is spending $ thusme 5 -- $53 million. over that.
7:08 pm
to have its logo highlighted at the world wrestling event to sponsor nascar racing. after years of congressional debate, the army national guard can still not provide any statistics, zero statistics, to demonstrate anyone has signed a recruiting contract as a result of this program. this amendment can bring both liberals and tea party conservatives together. the fact that $53 million in taxpayer funds is going to sponsor some of the most violent and sex ift entertainment on television and nascar racing teams that result in zero recruits is a waste of money and should be stopped. as a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee over and over the past three months, our subcommittee has heard from military leaders that sequestration is causing a crisis. military readiness is diminished. hundreds of thousands of pentagon employees are being
7:09 pm
furloughed and access to mental health care is being cut. the national guard testified at because of sequestration, 115,000 traditional national guard forces will not receive their annual medical or dental examinations. the guard says and i quote, this reduction in examinations will bring a total force medical readiness down by 39%. yet the national guard can afford to pay one nascar race driver $29 million and pay another driver $14 million for indy car racing. this is a case of misplaced priorities. congress has to make smart choices and smart cuts. terminating this program is an easy choice, unless you want to protect government handouts to millionaire race car drivers and owners. in the past, some of my conservative friends have made a claim that cutting this wasteful
7:10 pm
spending was micro managing the pentagon. my job is not to protect race car track owners and drivers, protecting taxpayer dollars is not micro managing, it is our job. in recent years, the army, navy and marine corps have all terminated nascar sponsorships, because they fail to meet the recruiting goals. they are making more other effective investments in recruiting dollars. the army is sponsoring high school football, the all-american ball and robotic competitions to engage help help and develop our skills to best serve our nation and serve in the armed forces. the very best marketing that our army national guard gets is not from a race car driver or violent wrestler but from the work that our national guards men and women do in performing
7:11 pm
in times of crises, during floods, forest fires and natural disasters. i'm proud of the service and sacrifice of the men and women who have served our nation in iraq and afghanistan and in minnesota. they are heroes. the opponents of my amendment believe that a $29 million taxpayer funded logo results in the national guard recruits and re-enlistment. based on what? the national guard has failed to prove any data that this program has resulted in any recruits, zero data, zero recruits. this republican congress is cutting children of the school lunch program, kicking them off of head start to save money. this congress is willing to inflict sequestration on our military. this amendment gives members the opportunity to cut real waste. and i reserve the balance of my time.
7:12 pm
the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. thornberry: i claim the time in opposition. i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hudson: i rise amongst a broad bipartisan coalition to oppose this amendment offered by my colleague from minnesota. facts are stubborn things. the national guard has stated the immense value of their recruiting and the facts of this program shows a successful return on investment for the taxpayers. demonstrate the success of this program, i would like to cite three numbers that support opposition. 90%. the national guard association of the united states and their counterpart, enlisted association of the national guard stated that a recent independent study found that 90% of the army national guard soldiers who enlisted were
7:13 pm
exposed to the guard from recruiting or retention materials featuring nascar drivers and their cars. 90%. that's a return on the investment for the american people. second number is 85%. of those who enlisted during that time period, 85% agree that professional sports are beneficial to attracting and retaining good soldiers. and the last number is 400,000. since embarking on the use of sponsorships in fiscal year 2007, they have added 400,000 more new soldiers, that is a return. these facts come from sound research which the national guard has shared with us and i would like to enter into the record my remarks today. the chair: without objection. mr. hudson: i would like you to consider how much we would get in our investment. i urge my colleagues to vote no.
7:14 pm
the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: they called it not good investment because 5% of nascar viewers weren't even the age for recruitment. let's end this wasteful program and put the money to recruit and keep a strong military. that, i yield back and i ask for a vote from the members to support my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on this issue. nascar is part of the national guard's outreach to young americans. nascar fans between the ages of 18-24 are twice as likely to
7:15 pm
consider the military. their fellow fans friends are likely to choose the military as a career option. advertising gives the military cost effective ways to reach patriotic fans. that's why there is a 3-1 return. nascar support of the military goes beyond mere sponsorship opportunities. nascar holds swearing-in ceremonies for new recruits giving them an example of the patriotism they support. the national guard has chosen to use its limited recruiting budget through the means it feels are most effective. we should not force to turn its back on a proven means of leveraging that budget and introducing millions of potential heroes. i urge my fellow members to oppose this amendment. thank you for the opportunity to speak and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields
7:16 pm
back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the the distinguished the gentleman from new york. . . . mr. kohl lynx thank they've had 400,000 new citizen soldiers since they'd begun, many sworn in right at the track. why would we want to cut something that's working. every season, the national guard emblem is seen on the hood of dale earnhardt jr.'s car, one of the most popular drivers in the last 10 years. since the national guard is prohibited from advertising on broadcast television, motorsports sponsorships are one of the few ways the guard can market to a national audience while interacting with local communities this amendment takes a strong proven -- program proven value yauble to military readiness and cuts it for the sake of political posturing. this amendment does not save money, it does not address any government excess or
7:17 pm
impropriety, it unnecessarily attack ours national guard and shackles their best opportunity to recruit and retain the very best for national security. as in the previous two defense authorization acts, i urge members to hold strong and oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. >> i yield one minute to mr. rogers of alabama. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i rise in strong opposition to the mccollum amendment. it would prohibit the national guard from sponsorg and advertising in national motorsports. it would have a negative impact on the ability of soldiers to enlist or re-enlist in the national guard. studies show that 90% of those who enlisted or re-ep listed were reached by this form of advertising.
7:18 pm
this advertising reaches the sport's loyal viewers, many of whom are between 18 to 24 years old, the target audience, recruit for the army national guard. i have voted in ties to rein in government spending however i see no tron prohibit this successful form of advertising which seeks to recruit men and women to protect our cupry. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. i'm sorry, the gentleman from texas' time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman -- gentlewoman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. ms. mccome --
7:19 pm
ms. mccollum: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentlelady from minnesota will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 28 will not be offers. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in art d of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. nolan: i have an -- i move the amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32, offered by mr. nolan of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260rk the gentleman
7:20 pm
from minnesota, mr. nolan, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise today on a matter of the highest priority critical to the future of our great nation and our people. it is time to put an end to the wars of choice and the nation building abroad and start rebuilding america. daily, we are reminded of our nation's fiscal crises, massive deficits and unemployment. shortage of revenues for the things we know, we need to do. the simple truth is the trillions of dollars spent on the wars of choice and the nation building abroad are the primary cause of our current financial crises. not social security and medicare as some would have us believe. the sad fact is, our own
7:21 pm
bridges are falling down. our infrastructure is crumbling. our education system is struggling. while millions more middle class men and women are unemployed or underemployed. mr. speaker, i strongly support a strong national defense but i also agree completely with my republican colleague, congressman mo brooks of alabama who recently said, and i quote, i don't believe that america can financially afford to be the police cop on every street corner in the world. we no longer have the financial resources to do that. fact, the $652 billion we spent on the military last year amounts to 57% of our discretionary budget. mind you, education is at 6%. agriculture at 1%.
7:22 pm
transportation at 2%. moreover, that $652 billion spent last year accounts for more than the next 10 largest military budgets in the world combined. china, russia, u.k., japan, france, saudi, india, germany, italy, brazil, we spent more than all of them combined. this $60 billion cut that's proposed in this amendment or a 9.4% cut that i proposed, is not an unreasonable amount. in fact, it is pactly the same amount the commission on wartime contracting estimates to have been wasted through fraud and abuse in iraq and afghanistan. understand that my amendment is not an across-the-board cut from every line item as in sequestration which makes no sense at all. my proposed cut is a cut from
7:23 pm
the bottom line that would give the appropriations committee the authority to decide where the cuts can most prudently be made and to me, those categories are crystal clear. we want to cut our excessive network of military bases in every nook and cranny of the world. we need to cut the failed infrastructure and investments in nation building abroad. we need to cut assistance to the armed combatants in every sectional and civil war in the world. we need to cut discretionary funds to initiate new programs not authorized by the congress. we need to cut funds for the extravagant compensation of c.e.o.'s in -- and giant defense contractors. we need to cut military weapons systems not requested by our military and we need to cut funds min taining -- maintaining the unnecessary
7:24 pm
facilities in guantanamo and we need to cut funding maintaining out of date weapons systems and naval vessels. now let me be clear where we must not cut. we must not cut veterans be'benefits, we must not cut the national guard, our most efficient bang for the dollar we get in national defense. we must not cut compensation to soldiers and their families. we must not cut assistance to israel and other strategic allies. we should not cut funds to teams and other elite units that respond to crises abroad. e cannot cut efforts to fund military justice and reduce sexual assaults in the military. moreover, it is my recommendation that the savings achieved here can be used for deaf sis -- deficit reduction and investments in our own infrastructure, our roads, bridges, ports, education, and the unmutt -- unmet human development meeds in this country. we can use this money to
7:25 pm
improve the quality of american live, stimulate our economy, to strengthen our power as a nation and to help restore america's confidence in the future. finally, mr. speaker, my amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit of the bipartisan budget control act of 2011 which recommended one trillion in defense cuts over the next decade and consistent as well with the significant cuts recommended across the spectrum by liberal policy groups such as the center for american progress as well as conservative and liberal groups. blerk all support a strong national defense, we support our troops, and we are committed to our veterans this amendment is not politics. it is economics. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is
7:26 pm
recognized. mr. thornberry: i admire the gentleman for stating clearly what he believes. in my opinion his argument is dangerous and it will mean a very much more dangerous world for united states and many of the people around the world who depend upon us. if we're going to talk number well, ought to just remind everybody that in 1960, the defense budget was about half of the total budget of the united states government. today, it's 17% of the budget for the united states government. now it's true, it's most of the discretionary spending, but that completely leaves out the entitlements or mandatory spending program, which are a vast majority of the government. so in more recent history, let's think about defense already took a reduction of $487 billion over a 10-year
7:27 pm
period. in the current fiscal year, it was cut another $55 billion. and now this amendment would take another $60 billion on top of that. mr. chairman, i think defense has been cut enough. if anyone had been listening to some of the debates we've been having today, you would hear about readiness being down. about training not occurring. about more expensive procurements because we can't buy at the most efficient rate. and this amendment would take another $60 billion on top of the other things and would include, of course, the personnel counts which were exempt under sequestration. but the ironic thing, mr. chairman, is that after you take this $60 billion out of defense, it would get hit again once sequestration cuts in. so in effect this doubles the cuts that come on defense from sequestration. it is mistaken, it is tragically mistaken, and i
7:28 pm
think it should be rejected. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: the only time i see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle corned -- concerned about fiscal restraint and cutting spending is when it comes to national defense. one of the most knuckleheaded thing this is congress has done is the sequestration framework i unfortunately was part of setting into place. but as you heard my colleague from texas state, we had already cut $480 billion out of defense before sequestration comes into play. now we have sequestration coming into play. the thought that we could be in a war, defend against potential areas of war that are emerging around the world, with further cuts, is mindless and irresponsible. we owe it to the men and women
7:29 pm
in this country who serve in uniform and their families to make sure they have everything they need to be safe and successful when we send them into ea theater of war. this amendment is dangerous and i urge my colleagues to reject it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of the time. i appreciate my colleague from alabama and i conclude with two points. one is that it is in the constitution where it clearly provides that a primary and i believe the primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend the country. you can't do that on the cheap. obviously you ought to be efficient. you shouldn't waste money. but the first job of the federal government is to defend the country. the second point i'd want to make is this. there are some people who seem to want to stick their head in the sand believe that all the threats have gone away. as a matter of fact, the president seemed to say a few weeks ago in his speech that the war on terrorism was over.
7:30 pm
and then today the president acknowledges that there is evidence that is clear, at least in ms. hind -- in his mind that chemical weapons have been used in siria. so whether you think about al qaeda and its affiliates spreading out all over the world or whether you think about the real dangers of chemical weapons in syria not just being used against syrians but potentially getting in the hands of terrorists and being used against us or whether you think about the new d domain of warfare, cybersecurity, or warfare in space, or whether you think about the potential military rise of china and what that meaners in united states and its interests, as you just wrap your mind around the headlines and the news of the world, my point is the threats have not gone away. this is a dangerous world, only the united states is a superpower to maintain stability and to protect the lives and freedoms of
7:31 pm
americans. that takes some resources. we've already cut defense. we've already cut defense enough. and certainly we should not cut defense again. this amendment should be rejected and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes -- the gentleman from minnesota. >> request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: as designee of
7:32 pm
the chairman and pursuant to h.res. i offer amendments en bloc. clerk en bloc number 4 consisting of amendments number 77, 78, 9, 70, 72, 74, 126, , 83, 102, 107 and printed in house report number 113-108 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i urge the members to vote for the amendments en bloc and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
7:33 pm
the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the en bloc amendment and encourage our colleagues to support it and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentleman from lorida, mr. posey. mr. posey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm pleased that my amendment is part of the en bloc amendment. my amendment simply allows the department of defense to transport on a space-available basis goods supplied by nonprofit organizations to members of the armed services who are deployed overseas. we ensure that the secretary has the authority to determine that there is a legitimate need for the goods being shipped and that the supplies are suitable for
7:34 pm
distribution. and that adequate arrangements have been made for distribution when the supplies arrives. this has been brought to me by veterans in my district. if enacted into law, it would give our troops the same consideration on a space-available basis as currently granted to foreigners unt the denton program. i yield back. the chair: jabt. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: i yield two minutes esty from connecticut. ms. esty: i rise in support of this en bloc amendment which theudes my amendment to add prompt act to the underlying legislation. i thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and cooperation. and i would like to thank my colleague dr. joe heck, for
7:35 pm
making the prompt act a bipartisan effort at improving our service to veterans, service members and their families. i drafted this legislation after working with several veterans in my district to replace medals and decorations that they have been waiting months and sometimes years to receive. one constituent, a korean war veteran, has grandchildren that want to see his medals and document his service as part of the family history. he shouldn't have to wait for the medals he earned. nor should paul cype qunch, a vietnam veteran seeking to replace his commend dation medal. more than two years later, he is waiting for the replacement medal. the prompt act creates standards to ensure that requests are
7:36 pm
fulfilled in a timely and organized fashion. we can and do better for those who serve our country with distinction. adding the prompt act ensures that we will. i urge support for the en bloc amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. collins. mr. collins: i rise to speak on behalf of an amendment to be offered later. this provides a sense of congress to the secretary of dens and urges my colleagues to support this amendment which will help maintain a strong national guard and reserve. we have seen time and again, whether it is superstorm sandy or other national troofs that the national guard and reserve that have come to the nation and helped support us in a time of
7:37 pm
need. september 11, it was the member of the air national guard that flew jets over new york city and this nation's capital. members of the guard and reserve have fought and died in iraq and afghanistan. time and again, we have called on them to support us and this proposed amendment just urges the secretary of defense to make sure that we send a message that he should make every effort to ensure our military reserve and national guard forces are fully manned and funded to help the united states fulfill its long-standing commitment to the defense of this country. the brave men and women who fill the ranks of both the national guard and reserve deserve nothing else. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: i yield three gallego of texas.
7:38 pm
mr. gallego: i rise in support of the en bloc amendments. they include two amendments to support the men and women who serve in our armed services and to support their families. the first amendment ensures that the department of defense can continue to fast track and expedite the hiring of critical health care workers who treat our wounded warriors and provide care to military families. members of our armed services make incredible sacrifices and taking care of them and their oved ones is one of the most highest promises. they receive medical attention at places like brook army medical center. the amendment would designate critical health care workers as part of a special category and
7:39 pm
thus make them eligible for salaries that are competitive with the higher salaries that are offered by the v.a. for similar positions. we need to ensure the highest standard of treatment for the men and women who have given so much to our country. there's no increase in costs associated. the department of defense has already budgeted for this proposal. the second amendment helps ensure that the secretary of defense can take measures as he sees fit to determine the effectiveness to reduce suicide by members of our armed services. people who took their own lives. that averages to one every 25 hours. we must take any and all measures to help reduce the suicide rate among those who serve our country. as a member of the armed
7:40 pm
services country, i thank the chairman and ranking member member for their hard work on a vital piece of legislation to treat wounded warriors and reduce suicide rates. i encourage passage of the en bloc amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: we have no further speakers. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. mr. larsen: we yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the en bloc amendments are agreed to.
7:41 pm
the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in house report b 113-108. >> i rise to offer amendment 33 as the designee. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: house report b 113-108 offered by mr. larsen of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman, this amendment would restore funding for commonsense
7:42 pm
nuclear weapons reductions that have been approved with the advice and consent of the senate and the navy and air force have planned for fiscal year 2014. the $70 million cut in the bill keeps nuclear weapons at cold war levels and denying funding risks the united states missing the deadline for compliance as there will be insufficient lead time to support conversion efforts to implement the reductions required by 2018, the date of entry into force. this amendment is funded by an offset. $50 million from darpa due to the recently terminated system f-6 which is big satellites. so this funding is available and 20 million in the service of secretary of defenseon and m funds.
7:43 pm
% cut with minimal impact. so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that, i reserve the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: i claim time in opposition. i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from alabama. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: today i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from tennessee, mr. cooper, as well as my good friend from washington state. the committee zeroed out these funds because the administration appears to be expecting a blank check from the congress to implement this treaty. the house must have the chance to evaluate whether the implementation of a treaty and the manner in which the administration intends to implement the treaty is in the u.s. national security interest.
7:44 pm
the report was required in the first place. i remind the house this report is mandated by law. are we comfortable in this house with letting the president ignore the law of the land as he sees fit? while the gentleman from tennessee withdrew the amendment in full committee because the offsets selected was of concern, a major -- the offset he has now is also a problem. it takes the program in darpa that has been eliminated recently and the funds for the program are planned to support transition activities to two other darpa programs. diverting $250 million would significantly slow down the schedule for these two programs. we expect president obama to announce likely next week in berlin that he will seek to reduce or reduce forces by a third beyond the new start treaty reductions we have yet to put in place. we need to put the brakes on
7:45 pm
this. the president is proposing dangerous changes to our nuclear forces and i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from washington has 33/4. mr. larsen: i yield the balance of the time to mr. cooper from tennessee. the chair: without objection. he gentleman from tennessee the chair: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee criminals the remapeder of the time. mr. cooper: it's a shame that president ronald reagan would have a hard time getting nominated in today's republican party. if you look at what president reagan said, he called for the abolition of, quote, all nuclear weapons, end of quote. furthermore, he went on to say that these weapons are, quote, totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive
7:46 pm
of life on earth and ivilization. no one on this side of the aisle is calling for abolition. we are calling the united states of america to live up to legitimate treaty commitments as passed by an overwhelming majority of thites senate. i know there's very little love lost for the body but it was anover whelming vote and it was just two or three years ago. the treaty is supposed to be implemented in 2018. why the other side isn't more interested in reducing russian weapons i don't know but this allows taos live up to our legitimate and legal treaty commitments. the other side is welcome to have suspicions of all sorts of things but we should obey mea treaties we have ratify -- obey the treaties we have ratified. i have worked hard with the other side to try to find appropriate offsets but the key is let's restore the $70
7:47 pm
million our own military wants so we can implement this treaty which could reduce nuclear risk in this world as president reagan called for. this is an opportunity, this is a necessity if we're going to live up to our legal obligations. i have hawaii the utmost respect for my -- i have the utmost respect for my friend from alabama. this is a need liss -- needless political fight and in the full committee we tried to work closely with folks on the other side of the aisle. this is just $70 million to live up to our existing treaty commitments. i urge my colleagues in full faith on both sides of the aisle, we can do this we must do this let's follow what president reagan would have wanted and let's support this treaty commitment. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you, mr.
7:48 pm
chairman. let's be clear. it has been misstated that if this amendment didn't pass, we would leave nuclear weapons heat -- at the cold war level. our nuclear weapons have already been reduced by 90% since the peak of the cold war. and 75% since the end of the cold war. ronald reagan never said that the united states should disarm itself, he saw a world where no one would have nuclear weapons, not that we'd place ourselves at a disadvantage. i believe that as ronald reagan would look around the world today he would have never foreseen a nuclear capable north korea and he certainly wouldn't have seen the world watch as iran marches to become a nuclear state. this amendment actually would take money from programs that are important but it would put money toward something that's not ready. we know we're not ready for new start treaty implementation and we know we are certainly not going to be in breach.
7:49 pm
this is not an issue of us walking away from a treaty obligation. this is not an issue of saying that russia should not reduce their nuclear weapons. we believe that russia ought to further reduce, especially their tactical weapons, the overwhelming thousands that are pointed at europe that are in greater numbers than europe or the united states would ever man. we believe we should stand up to the treaty obligation bus we have to look at what the president promised, which as the president said, in order for us to go to the new start treaty leavells -- levels, america has work to do that work needs to be done. while the president walks awhat from his commitments to -- commitments to nuclear modernization and fails to turn in the report that would tell us what our strategy is the president wants to continue down the path of dismantling nuclear weapons when year not ready. new start can wait until we fay the conditions even the president had put forward. but even further, we have to look at what the president currently is doing. the president has signaled he
7:50 pm
wants to reduce knew leer weapons further even before we got to new start and the problem is obviously north korea marched a weapon to the launch pad that could threat then united states. this is not the time to do this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from tennessee has a minute and three quarters. mr. cooper: let me speak briefly and then i'll yield to my friend from california. my friends on the other side of the aisle, no unone can do -- can know what president reagan would do today but read what kissinger and thorkse keeps of the ray began legacy are writing today. they're doing what they can to have enforce. treaties with the former soviet union work russia, and i urge our colleagues to do what the military is requesting, to give them the means to implement this treaty.
7:51 pm
i yield to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. trust and verify. wow. in the new start treaty, trust and verify. but to get to the trust and verify, we have to begin the process, $70 million requested by the military to begin the process. i know the gentleman on the other side of this question has spent days and days working through this budget and the military plans years ahead and in order to carry out the new start treaty and see the reductions we need to make on our side as obligated by that treaty, we need to begin that planning process now. it's not a matter of throwing the weapons out or disposing of these weapons today. it's how we go about getting to that point. the $70 million is essential for that. we'll delay by one whole year the process of carrying out our treaty obligations. the -- russia is in the process of carrying out their treaty
7:52 pm
obligations and we should too. it's very simple, guys. it's about carrying out an obligation we have, it's about giving the military the money that they need today to carry -- to begin the planning to do the early parts of that process. trust and verify. the russians wants us -- want us, they trust us, maybe, but they want verification, we want verification of them -- from them also. this is all about carrying out a treaty obligation, getting it going. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: no one know what is reagan would have done but if we had a reagan approach to defense we wouldn't be debating $60 billion cuts to defense. the other point i'd make is ratification of the new start treaty was conditioned in the
7:53 pm
senate upon certain investments to our nuclear deterrent infra structure. and unfortunately, those investments have not been forthcoming. let me talk about the offset for just a second. the most cutting edge done for our military is done at car pa. car pa funding is flat. there are a number of us concerned about that. but what they do at car pa is evaluate -- at darpa is they evaluate the projects they have and if one seems less promising, they move money around. this punishes them for doing that as they move money it takes that money away. and when you're looking at funding research, it seems to me we want to encourage that sort of flexibility toward the most promising avenues of the research. and yet this amendment takes exactly the opposite approach. for a variety of reasons, mr. chairman, i think this amendment is not a good idea and i would recommend members
7:54 pm
vote against it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed. mr. cooper: mr. chairman. we ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will e postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 36 prinned in part b of house report 113-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 113 offered by mr. begin onof new
7:55 pm
york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. gibson: this amendment is simple, it strikes the language in 1251 which pertains to sir -- syria, a very serious subject talked about here this evening, in my view, we should be debating this in regular order and there should be a stand-alone resolution that deals with syria. you know, this language that we have in the underlying bill, the intent of it i understand was supposed to deal with the weapons of mass destruction in syria, the control of them, that would be one thing. but i just want every member to understand what's in the underlying language. subsection b, subsection one, president obama should fully consider all courses of action to remove president assad from power that sounds like lune
7:56 pm
lateral action for regime change to me. subsection five the united states should continue to support syrian opposition forces with nonlethal aid. i don't remember authorizing any aid to begin with, much less continuing. subsection eight, should the president decide to deploy military assets in syria, the president should provide a supplemental budget request to congress, yes on the supplemental budget question but should the president decide to deploy military assets, that's for us to decide, not the president. so mr. chairman, i have concerns, i understand the initial intent, it is my strongest recommendation that we strike this language that we work together on language that's more suitable for an ndaa and then if desired to have broader discussion with a separate resolution if smn somebody wants to move forward with regard to action in syria. i would say that i oppose a military action in syria but i certainly think there should be voices. we should have representatives speaking for their people.
7:57 pm
and i hope that we learn. in 2011 i came here very concerned about libya, i spoke out against military action, we ended up taking military action. i was concern wed would empower forces, hostile to us and i regret to say in september, the 11th of last year, we ended up with a situation in benghazi we all are saddened by. i want to see us learn from this and i want to see us strike this language. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i i -- mr. mckeon: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield two and a half minutes to the gentlelady from indiana, ms. what horsekey. -- ms. walorski. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. walorski mplet while i respect the author of theament i must rise in opposition this amendment does strike section 1251 of the underlying bill
7:58 pm
that expresses a sense of congress in regard to syria. section 1251 says the president should have a plan in place to secure u.s. interests in syria. that, the u.s. should support the stability of our allies like israel, our strongest ally in the region and that the u.s. should continue to conduct rigorous planning to secure any chemical and biological stockpiles. it does not say that the u.s. should intrveen in syria. and it does -- intervene in sir yasm it requires the president to provide a supplemental budget should military action be necessary. though much delayed, the confirmation from the obama administration a few hours ago that the assaad regime has used chemical weapons against rebel forces demonstrates why section 1251 is needed. it's time to get serious about addressing syria. and develop a plan to protect american interests in the region. according to the president,
7:59 pm
assaad has crossed a quote-unquote red line. by turning a blind eye to this civil war that has already claimed more than 90,000 lives, we lose credibility within the region and embolden bad actors like iran and hezbollah. i would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i yield back my time. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. gibson: i yield myself 20 seconds and then i'll yield to my good friend from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gibson: i just want to say in response that with regard to planning, absolutely. and i know our military forces are always in the process of plan, standing with israel, absolutely. but i just would remind my colleagues to read the language in here. this is inappropriate for an ndaa. it is not in our interest to be affirming this language. at this point i'd like to yield to my good friend, mr. garamendi from california. the chair: the gentleman is
8:00 pm
recognized. mr. garamendi: may i inquire as to the time available? the chair: the gentleman has two and a quarter minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. a lot of analogies come to mind, slippery slopes, camel's nose under the tent, syria is an extremely serious matter. and the role of the united states in the serious issue of syria needs to be fully vetted by the congress and the senate. we are debating, giving 10 minutes of time to this issue, plus perhaps another five minutes in the committee hearing to this matter of what is the role of the united states in the syrian issue. slippe

53 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on